Judge Misses Point On Id Ruling

December 20, 1985

THOSE WHO expected a meaty legal opinion on the constitutionality of Palm Beach`s worker indentification law just got hit with a Nerf ball, a light plastic sphere favored by parents because the kids can catch it but it won`t break anything.

U.S. District Judge Norman C. Roettger Jr. struck down the law - which requires that most service employees in the town register with police, pay $4 for an identification card, give their fingerprints and submit to a background criminal check - on the grounds that it violated the commerce clause of the Constitution.

It was a bad law that gave police an extracurricular power of investigation because certain people wanted nothing more than to work in Palm Beach.

Roettger did not, however, rule on five other constitutional complaints lodged by the two plaintiffs in the case. That`s a pity because issues like equal protection, the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right of privacy, the right to travel and the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship offer much more compelling challenges to Palm Beach`s worker identification law.

Technically, Roettger`s decision rests on the solid ground of precedent. It is obvious, however, that federal courts have been stretching to the breaking point the clause giving the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Plaintiff Ignatius Wallace, who refused to register so he could accept a job delivering ice at the Breakers Hotel, claimed interstate commerce was involved because the Palm Beach ordinance forced him to travel from his home in West Palm Beach to Atlanta to secure a full-time job.

Rochelle Vana, who joined Wallace in filing the suit, traveled from Indiana to West Palm Beach to seek employment in Palm Beach. Therefore, a tenuous link to interstate commerce was involved in her claim as well.

Roettger relied on a Supreme Court standard for determining whether a local law affects interstate commerce and found that it failed one of three tests - whether alternative, less burdensome means could be found to accomplish the same goal, which in Palm Beach`s case was to prevent crime.

The judge found that an alternative did exist. The same background check called for by ordinance and performed by police can be performed by the private employer as a condition of hiring. The same pertinent criminal information secured by police is available to any private citizen through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Few will appreciate the fine legal points upon which Roettger`s ruling stands, but most people who find barriers of class repugnant and discriminatory will happily accept Roettger`s decision. Too bad it was such a lightweight pitch.